News Analysis: 60 Minutes, Hillary Clinton, US Weekly and Gender Stereotypes

Although these 60 Minutes interviews aired a month ago, and much has changed, I feel the criticisms and observations I’ve recorded still stand. I’ve updated and edited various versions of this since that time, more because of time restraints than anything else. The segments are solid pieces, very well-written, but look at the stark differences in terms of style of questioning, arrangement of questions, what they discussed.

60 Minutes aired the Obama interview first, then after the commercial break came Hillary. Notice the differences, in approach, in style:

Obama’s video:

(Transcript)

Now watch Hillary:

(Transcript)

They’re both excellent interviews, no doubt. There's no coincidence that Katie Couric is the one interviewing Hillary, and the 60 Minutes newsman Steve Kroft has Barack. Katie Couric--with all the criticism of her Evening News broadcast, her soft Today Show background--is going to be asking "the tough questions" of the female presidential candidate. It's a perfect meld: Katie gets to be serious, yet show off her gentleness, how at ease she can be, and Hillary can indulge them.

Both interviewers ask good questions, often touching on similar topics, and both candidates do shill out a bit their lines. But notice: while Kroft ends the interview with the “How do you do it?” question, Couric begins her interview that way. While both interviewers aren’t antagonistic, and are usually very friendly, Couric affects camaraderie right away: She brings up her troubles, the fact that she could very well lose the nomination, starting the interview off negatively, though with a pressing question. Yet Hillary answers positively, that she believes in what she’s doing, telling herself, essentially, that she can do it. It’s all very touchy-feeling women’s magazine-y. Katie interrupts her: “You never think, oh I’m so tired, I’m so exhausted, I’m spending so much money, wouldn’t it be easier to hang it all up?”

It’s such a bonding moment, yet it’s a question I’m sure many are wondering. “Katie, you can’t think like that, you have to believe you’re going to win, otherwise leave the field and let someone who has the confidence and the optimism and the determination that a leader has to have get on the field and stay,” Hillary responds with iron-strong conviction. However, as much as it is easy to mock Hillary Clinton's women's magazine-self-help strong-woman mantra of "I believe I can", she's got a point. There's no way--and this goes for anyone undertaking such a massive effort--that you can do something so huge, so completely taxing on every possible facet of your life, without believing in what you are doing. It’s impossible. You have to believe that you can effect change, that you can succeed. That will (and her money) must be strong. Yet that line, especially in this context, does come across as a little pandering, self-serving, haughty, even. To some people it sounds patronizing. Would it come across that way if Barack Obama said it, if a male candidate said it? Probably not; it wouldn’t have that ring of cynicism that plagues her.

Watch their faces during this interaction. Katie Couric really wants to know how Hillary does it, and Hillary, true to her gender and her persona, gives details, techniques: hot peppers, water, no diet soda, washing her hands to stay healthy. Details are what women want to know. We marvel at those who somehow have it all, get it all done, and Hillary fits perfectly into that. It’s why her “crying moment” before New Hampshire worked for many women voters.

Katie also asks if Hillary likes Barack Obama. Hillary’s whole spiel–she helped campaign for him, there’s a picture of him in her office, yada yada yada–is inconsequential. What’s the point? Is Katie trying to get Hillary to crack, to prove there is more than a scintilla of bad blood between them, trying to form wedges? Isn’t that what people accuse women of doing all the time, holding onto grudges and forming new ones, to prove that Hillary’s full of hate? Notice Steve Kroft didn’t ask Obama his opinion of Hillary. Why does this matter? Presidential candidates have been known to pick running mates based on electability, not on their personal opinion. Hillary’s answers are all pat, pandering responses that deserve eye-rolling–yeah, we all waited on bated breath for the day where a white woman would run against a black man for president. She is right, though, in that this election is both about what they represent and who they are, more so than any other election. I question whether Obama’s ever had a negative ad run against him. He did run for Congress; senate races do have attack ads. Hell, even my local mayoral election had some nasty (yet clever) flyers sent out.

Look at Katie’s face when she asks, teasingly, if Hillary “couldn’t handle it”. She’s egging her on. Couric also asks about media treatment compared to Obama, and—this is before the “whining” in the Ohio debate—she acknowledges it, but says it’s ok. It has to be ok. If it’s not, she’s got a grudge, a vendetta, and even if that’s true, she can’t let everybody know it. It must not be verified.

Katie also goes into Hillary’s personal history. “Weren’t you the girl who sat in the front row who took copious notes and always raised her hand?” “Well, not always...” C’mon, Katie, weren’t you that type of girl too? They giggle, sharing a laugh about high school boys (it is pretty funny). It’s all designed—much like the entire segment—to show Hillary as human, feminine, to appeal to women voters, her base. I want to ask if it’s really necessary, but that’s a moot question. It’s what you do, and she’s been just as “aggressive” and “manly” in some of her tactics as commented on in the press. It doesn’t matter—you do what you need to do to win.

She doesn’t just do this on television. In this multifaceted media world, you have to hit every possible target, so why not do a spread in US Weekly? Here, she’s embarrassingly over-the-top and garishly girlish and giggly—exactly what this trashy mag is. She's trying to be "relatable", for all those young and middle-aged and bored women who like to thumb through those celebrity digs. It's downmarket Hillary. Look at those exclamation marks! Because it’s too elitist to be in a Vogue spread, since only Coasters read that magazine, and they’re going for Obama anyway. Downtrodden middle-class middle-American voters, that’s who she needs!

But since then, in order to be fair (and because an US Weekly staffer is an Obama fan), the other Democratic hopeful had his spotlight in this great tabloid. His though is cute, People-magazine friendly, with shots of his family and lots of kids, including himself as a lil tyke. Aww. It’s not embarrassing; it’s the male version of “He’s Just Like Us!” the popular feature where famous people are shown doing everyday things. Although one can argue that because Hillary’s been in the public eye longer than Barack has, it’s a better feature to show her atrocious outfits, especially because she’s a woman of power; she should know better. But instead, even with the ridiculous prose and tone of the entire publication dumbing them down, Hillary’s piece comes off as voyeuristic; it’s time to shake our heads and cluck-cluck at her stupidity. It can be relatable, but not in the Oprah way. Barack’s piece, despite him doing “normal” things, isn’t voyeuristic at all; it’s classy. It’s sweet, it’s what Life magazine would do if Life still existed or if he was running decades ago.

It's hard to be humble and confident, especially in politics. No one can be everything to everybody, but a presidential candidate's got to try. For those who accuse me of following the election based on identity politics, there were many times during this interview where I cringed a little. Hillary, like many driven, hard-charging women, comes across a little too earnest, and that turns a lot of people off. Earnestness is vulnerability mixed with passion; you see this trait when people get on their high horse over some issue important to them.

Is the analysis unfair? I’ve been pretty harsh towards both Katie Couric and Hillary Clinton. I don’t have a particular bias against either one of them; some people might call me a fan or apologist for them because of things I’ve said in the past. But I’m struck by the different tactics used in the interviews and by US Weekly. Their agendas were similar; both interviewers were gentle, and the spreads only served as another extension of coverage, reaching to people who may not be politically aware. In the interview, both Obama and Clinton gave excellent answers; I particularly liked Obama’s example of Google as a company that hasn’t been around long but that runs excellently. He has a point–but I also think that experience does go hand in hand with longevity/age, for lack of a better word–it’s why young people have such a hard time finding jobs and such.

But what might be one of the most telling moments in the entire segment is the ending: Says Hillary, “I have a clear sense that things will work out the way they work out. I will be fine.” It’s the quintessential ending for a female-centered story. After all, that’s how Sex and the City ended, with Carrie saying she’ll be fine, and that it’ll be just fabulous. I can just hear Hillary saying the same thing.

Times Roundup, March 1-3, 2008

“How do you prove you’re a Jew?”

A question my family was recently discussing regarding the Birthright Israel trip. I haven’t read the article yet (one of these days…), but I know it’s way more serious than what we were wondering. Still, a good question...

In expanding my repertoire of Times columnists, reading William Kristol’s latest, another elegy on William F. Buckley, I was struck by the sheer number of SAT-worthy words and phrases. Mordantly! Recrudescence! Lodestar! Immanentize the Eschaton! Coincidence? Is this how he really writes? We’ll see. I’m certainly getting an education.

This Scrabulous thing certainly has legs. I don’t know anyone who plays it (I’ve only seen it once on a profile); it was the media that alerted me to its popularity. I agree that nowadays everybody’s gotta adjust to the web; it completely transforms a business. Digital media—expanding beyond the internet, into phones, television and the like—is how a business survives. I understand where Hasbro and Mattel are coming from, feeling assaulted, but for tech-savvy people, that’s not how it works. Money quote:

Many Scrabulous fans, some of whom say they bought the board game for the first time after playing the online version on Facebook, call their approach heavy-handed and out of touch. […] People believe it to be in the public domain, like chess,” Mr. Williams said. “The idea that Scrabble belongs to a corporation is something that people don’t or are unwilling to accept.”

Nowadays we're so used to "owning" things that the idea of paying for certain things--like downloaded music--seems stupid. My brother doesn't see the point in buying CDs if you can just as easily burn them as I feel that every feature article should be available online in full text. It's similar in that for some people it's hard to believe that happy birthday is actually copyrighted. This feeling is only going to get worse, because as things become porous and easily available, it's natural that we feel entitled to it. Another damnation for our generation?

Megan Meier was mentioned in an article discussing suicide and the blogosphere, how harmful criticisms can explode, and ruin lives. This time we’re not dealing with a teenager. More to come.

While I’m not sure how I feel about Gail Collins (other than I’m glad the Times has another female op-ed columnist), I’ve begun to get used to her flippant humor. She’s not biting or punny like Maureen Dowd; she favors a Q-and-A style that’s been used by David Brooks before, but her answers are both irreverent and concise.

I also love the idea of a secular Sabbath, something I’ve done on occasion, whenever I feel my life is being overtaken by Facebook or AIM. There is a freedom to being unreachable, and we’ve gotten to the point where we look at those who reject these technological accoutrements as weirdoes. How do they do it? How do they stand being in their own fluid life, unbeholden to anybody? How do they stand not wondering, unconcerned about what other people are doing?!?!

Tomorrow are the Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries. It's all on Clinton now. Win or lose, we know it's gonna be one hell of an exciting day. Frankly--and I know many people label me a Clinton apologist--if she loses tomorrow she should not fight for the nomination. It'll be tainted because she didn't win it fairly, and fighting for Michigan and Florida delegates when she signed an agreement saying they were out of bounds as punishment for being greedy and moving their primaries up is only going to make her look worse, not better. Going full-throttle ruthless isn't going to help her in the least; it'll just turn off a lot of people.

I've been thinking about Hillary over the past couple of weeks. I remember in 2000 I was against her Senate run precisely because she wasn't truly from New York; like rich people with political persuasions, she could effectively pick a geographic location, plunker down and run for office. Not cool. I was disappointed that Rick Lazio lost by so much. So how in the intervening years had I forgotten this? Yet I've also taken umbrage by those who say that she just relied on her husband, that she could've run on her own. We'll never know. I used to be firmly in that camp, of "you don't need someone's coattails to ride on, do it yourself," and I was very passionate about that. But then one day I went, so what? So what if she used Bill? He undoubtedly used her. People use each other for mutual gain all the time; it's a part of friendship, whether we admit to it or not. Besides, it's long been known in history that women, to get what they wanted, to have any sort of say or power, needed men to do so and often overtook their positions when they were unable to serve. That sounds like what everyone fears here, that Hillary's just extending Bill's run in office. Unfortunately for her, she'll never escape who she is or her past. I'm still not sure how I stand on this subject of women using men to get the position they want. I usually think it manipulative (there tends to be no character I hate more than a manipulative bitch), coldhearted, and in a way, weak (this is for modern-day women), but sometimes I'm not so sure. Maybe it's just smart.

Is Chelsea Clinton a public figure?

With the recent controversy of MSNBC commentator David Shuster asking if Chelsea Clinton is being pimped out on the campaign trail by her parents, the question becomes—ignoring whether or not Shuster's comments are acceptable, drawing the line on good taste, slang and political correctness, an issue we'll return to time and again--if that's really true. After all, Chelsea is an adult, she makes her own decisions.

Chelsea's been in the news lately because all of sudden she's in the spotlight, campaigning for her mom, but she frustratingly won't give reporters what they want. She refuses to speak to all media, even declining an interview request by an eight-year old boy for Scholastic News, that little paper we got in elementary school as an introduction to the far-off world of current events. I’m sure many people thought it was silly, but she was sticking to her guns.

Chelsea is now 27, a hedge fund manager in New York City. While she has always been private—and opposite of those “hard-partying” Bush twins, she has been profiled in Talk magazine back in 2002, and even wrote a piece on her Sept. 11 experience. Since she was young, she was shy, yet the media tried to bring her into focus, as they are naturally inclined to do just as we are naturally inclined to be interested in the only child of one of the most powerful families in the world.

Despite going to Stanford and getting a degree at Oxford, like her father, she has managed to keep most of her life private. Good for her. Although the Clintons say that she isn’t a public figure, she’s put herself in that role, and knowing that by being their daughter, she runs certain risks. As the daughter of a presidential candidate, there will be some media attention. Any time you are a relative of a public official you run the risk of getting some media attention; it comes with the territory. Yes, it’s unfair, but that’s life. Heck, even President Truman’s daughter Margaret had her own obituary recently, and I bet not many people knew anything about her.

But once you thrust yourself in a role where you are talking to large groups of people to change their minds on a topic—actively campaigning—you lose your right to say you are completely a private figure.

The definition of a public figure differs by state, but generally, according to the AP Style Handbook, in New York "a public figure is one who has thrust himself or herself into the vortex of a public issue or controversy or has taken affirmative steps to attract public attention." In Texas, it's "one who has assumed a role of prominence in the affairs of society; California, "one who has voluntarily and actively sought in connection with any matter of public interest, to influence resolution of the issues involved."

That's exactly what Chelsea Clinton is doing. She's thrust herself in the limelight, so to speak, in a prominent role to influence a huge matter in society for the public interest.

While the notion that the Clintons and their machine are using their daughter for political game has some merit, it’s largely discredited by the fact that Chelsea is…their daughter. Children campaign for their parents. Did anyone mock all the hands-on effort any of the Romney sons did for dear ol’ dad? While Meghan McCain has gotten the most press because she writes a blog detailing all the wacky antics of going on the campaign trail, McCain has seven other children, ranging in age from 48 to 16. Other than the fact that all these kids are incredibly lucky in terms of the opportunities offered them (seriously, those are all the people getting all the internships at top-tier magazines…and Chelsea makes a six-figure salary), it's up to them if they're old enough if they want to campaign for their parents, and many of them take the opportunity. I would--what an experience! Remember when Giuliani’s kids made news because they refused to back up their dad—and his daughter listed that she supported Obama instead? That’s controversial.

Some might question why haven’t other presidential children gotten so much scrutiny. Meghan McCain, despite her blog, talks less about issues and more about what’s on her iPod. She also is much more behind-the-scenes than Chelsea is, and most people have never heard of her. McCain’s other children do not have an active role. Kerry’s children, when they were in the spotlight, were criticized. Obama’s children are too little. The Bush twins have had their fair share of media attention, the majority of it negative, with the exception of Jenna’s wedding announcement. And frankly, Chelsea’s been in the public eye for so long that she’d garner attention even if her mom wasn’t running for president.

Once Chelsea decided that she was going to actively make speeches on behalf of her mother, write articles, or otherwise make herself a visual, audible presence in her mother’s campaign she is seen as a public figure. She can, for the most part, continue what she’s doing. She’ll still lead a relatively quiet life compared to most other notable public figures, especially if her mother doesn’t get the nomination, and if she does—she’s an adult. She has her own apartment, her own, separate life.

If I was Chelsea, I’d speak to the press, because I believe that usually speaking is better than not saying anything. You can try to correct the record. Not speaking often just parlays into suspiciousness on behalf of those waiting for an answer: What are you hiding? While I don’t think Chelsea is hiding anything—she’s just private, and there is a difference, talking to the press might get them off her back.

Politicking

I’ve been wondering why Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, has such momentum in this presidential race. He basically came out of nowhere—that 2004 Democratic National Convention speech (how did he get picked for that?) made him our great next Democratic presidential hopeful. I understand that he’s young and that he represents a changing of the guard. I just don’t understand the particulars, how one speech that put him in the national spotlight also made it seem a given that he’s qualified enough to be our next president, and that he has a good shot of winning. Sometimes I wonder if people are supporting him because he’s black. Yes, he has the goods: charm, personality, an interesting background yet one that fits in with the status quo (lawyer), he’s young and ready to make a change…and he’s black, so why not? It’s that extra oomph that puts him ahead.

Contrast that with Hillary, who I feel is blackmarked by a lot of people because of her name. The brilliant op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem in today’s Times (#1 on the email list too!) articulates so well why the feminist in me wants to support Hillary. I know she’s worked hard her entire life, is considered an excellent senator, and really wants to be president because she wants to change things. So many people I know are anti-Hillary—and honestly, for the most part, I can’t remember why. Other than being who she is, her baggage defines her, and those are the main reasons that people don’t like her. She’s in a no-win position, damned if you do, damned if you don’t, regarding her background, experience, and the people who support her, because people don’t want to listen. They know that she’s just going to bring corruption and scandal to the office, that she reeks of the ‘90s. Although we curiously are a nostalgic nation when it comes to popular culture today, it doesn’t seem to work for the candidates referring to themselves as Kennedy-, Reagan-, or Lincolnesque. Maybe it’s because there’s a war on, and nobody is trying to be Roosevelt.

As I write this, I haven’t seen Hillary’s emotional outburst yet, I’ve only read about it. But even so, I get it. Campaigning for anything, devoting so much time and energy to any cause, let alone president, is completely giving your all. Of course it’s emotional. Every single thing these candidates do is scrutinized, and with Hillary it’s double. The pressure is exhausting and nonstop, and I applaud her for being human and for being real. Hillary, in a sense, has been preparing for this her entire life, and I’ve always liked seeing the person behind the persona, so to speak. It’s important to see it in our leaders, the people we admire and who get recognition for actively trying to make a difference in this world so we can really see how hard they work and how things get done, instead of just seeing celebrities buying cereal in the grocery store, the defunct mode of seeing famous people as ordinary citizens.

Maybe Hillary really is like Reese Witherspoon’s character in Election. Tracey Flick is a manipulative bitch, but she’s fascinating. And she does put her all into that damn election.